Appeal 2007-0368
Application 10/178,127
reasonably possible. See Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1993); Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984).
In the present case we consider such a reasonable, conditional interpretation
to be possible. Because the Appellants’ original disclosure does not appear to limit
the meaning of “offset”, this conditional interpretation is that “offset” encompasses
any displacement.2
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103
The Appellants limit their arguments regarding the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) to the independent claims (1 and 12) (Br. 5-6). Although
additional references are applied in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Appellants do not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of
the dependent claims to which the obviousness rejection is applied. We limit our
discussion to the rejection and claims argued by the Appellants, i.e., the rejection
of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The non-argued dependent claims,
whether rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 103, stand or fall with
those claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Van Erden discloses a reclosable plastic bag having upper (10) and lower
(11) layers that are joined at their tops by a fin seal (12) (col. 3, ll. 36-39).
Between the bag layers is a zipper strip (13) having a fold (14) below the fin seal
and having mating pressure interlocking profiles (15) such as rib and groove
elements between the zipper strip’s lower edges (col. 3, ll. 40-46). The zipper strip
2 See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 797 (G. & C. Merriam 1973)(“1off·set
… 3 … b : DISPLACEMENT”).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013